International relations scholars agree that states often seek the endorsement or participation of multilateral security organizations when using military force because it increases support for their policies among their domestic publics, and have advanced a range of theories to explain why.
However, this literature has given little attention to the attitudes of individuals who participate directly in the foreign policy process or shape foreign policy debates, contend JOSHUA BUSBY, CRAIG KAFURA, JONATHAN MONTEN and JORDAN TAMA. “Our experimental survey findings contribute to the debate over international organizations, domestic politics, and opinion formation in several ways,” they write in ‘Multilateralism and the Use of Force: Experimental Evidence on the Views of Foreign Policy Elites’, published in the latest edition of the journal Foreign Policy Analysis.
First, their evidence suggests that multilateral approval matters more to foreign policy elites than to the public, including internationalist members of the public. Second, elites who are directly involved in diplomacy or foreign policy decision-making seem to be particularly responsive to multilateralism. “Together, these findings suggest that the views of foreign policy elites may be shaped as much by their specialized expertise and experience as by more general attitudinal characteristics.”
Third, multilateral endorsement has a cross-party effect on the opinions of elites but does not appear to transcend party lines for the general public. “As a result, the opinions of Republican elites are closer to Democratic elites than to Republican members of the public, suggesting that elite-public differences can be at least as important as partisan differences when it comes to international attitudes.”
Fourth, given that elites have more preexisting knowledge about international affairs than the public, it is likely that their greater responsiveness to multilateral backing is motivated mainly by legitimacy or burden-sharing concerns, rather than by the value of a ‘second opinion’.
“A key next step is to further investigate the mechanisms driving elite-public, intra-elite, and intrapublic differences in foreign policy attitudes, particularly with respect to the three families of explanations we highlighted,” the authors state. Future research might also build on this evidence by investigating whether and how the particular multilateral organization – be it the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the African Union, or another institution – endorsing or authorizing a military operation matters.
Additional future work might also examine why certain types of elites or members of the public might be particularly swayed by multilateral cooperation or whether the patterns identified in these surveys differ among elites and publics outside the United States, they state. “Extensions and replication studies like these will be important tests of the robustness of these findings and help assess the nature and extent of the impact of multilateral cooperation on domestic audiences.”
Joshua Busby, Craig Kafura, Jonathan Monten, Jordan Tama, 'Multilateralism and the Use of Force: Experimental Evidence on the Views of Foreign Policy Elites', Foreign Policy Analysis, orz005, https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orz005
First, their evidence suggests that multilateral approval matters more to foreign policy elites than to the public, including internationalist members of the public. Second, elites who are directly involved in diplomacy or foreign policy decision-making seem to be particularly responsive to multilateralism. “Together, these findings suggest that the views of foreign policy elites may be shaped as much by their specialized expertise and experience as by more general attitudinal characteristics.”
Third, multilateral endorsement has a cross-party effect on the opinions of elites but does not appear to transcend party lines for the general public. “As a result, the opinions of Republican elites are closer to Democratic elites than to Republican members of the public, suggesting that elite-public differences can be at least as important as partisan differences when it comes to international attitudes.”
Fourth, given that elites have more preexisting knowledge about international affairs than the public, it is likely that their greater responsiveness to multilateral backing is motivated mainly by legitimacy or burden-sharing concerns, rather than by the value of a ‘second opinion’.
“A key next step is to further investigate the mechanisms driving elite-public, intra-elite, and intrapublic differences in foreign policy attitudes, particularly with respect to the three families of explanations we highlighted,” the authors state. Future research might also build on this evidence by investigating whether and how the particular multilateral organization – be it the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the African Union, or another institution – endorsing or authorizing a military operation matters.
Additional future work might also examine why certain types of elites or members of the public might be particularly swayed by multilateral cooperation or whether the patterns identified in these surveys differ among elites and publics outside the United States, they state. “Extensions and replication studies like these will be important tests of the robustness of these findings and help assess the nature and extent of the impact of multilateral cooperation on domestic audiences.”
Joshua Busby, Craig Kafura, Jonathan Monten, Jordan Tama, 'Multilateralism and the Use of Force: Experimental Evidence on the Views of Foreign Policy Elites', Foreign Policy Analysis, orz005, https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orz005
No comments:
Post a Comment